Youve just explained why its a grey area. A player does not need to be convicted of anything to bring a club into disrepute.

That too!!

Or alternatively people may have simply been discussing options that the club may be considering. Bang out of order if you ask me, people chatting on a chat forum!!

No one is saying he could be dismissed in relation to the charge of the offence. The dismissal would be linked to damaging the brand by being charged, which ifyou look into it a company can actually choose to do should they want to, whether the charge leads to a conviction or not. Trust me.

Couldnt Gareth get you the right ink to print them properly?

hehe

A company can of course do what it likes if it prepared to pay for the consequences



But are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, someone made a wholly false and malicious allegation against a player that he had been involved in some illegal or other disreputable conduct, the club would be justified in sacking him because he had damaged the brand by allowing such an allegation to be made against him?

I can tell you for a fact that if the allegation was subsequently proven to be false the player would be quids in and the club would be considerably out of pocket.

I do take your point, but that wasn't my intention when using the phrase and neither am I one of those who is willing to overlook crimes committed by sportsmen just because they play for my team. I have in the past (and will in the future no doubt) called for the sacking of players who have been found guilty of serious crimes.

Bearing in mind this would be multiple crimes, he'd be down the road.

Anyway, if he is guilty and gets bird, then he'll be gone anyway.

its not someone making a false accusation though is it, its the cps deciding that the police have built up enough evidence to refer to the crown court.

Quite. Not to mention Hull's own internal investigation.Who knows what may come out of it?

think the point that some are missing on here is that im not saying i would dismiss him now. I defo would if he was found guilty. My point has been that we could still legally sack him if we wanted to. Fwiw i would speak to him and get his facts, find out what his plea will be and take legal advice on the likelihood of his guilt or not to make an immediate call

I too would dismiss him if he was found guilty (or pleaded guilty).

Where we disagree is whether the club can legally dismiss him now.

I doubt his solicitor would advise him to say much to the club while the prosecution is still ongoing.

As his employer he needs to when requested.

Quite. I wasn't suggesting that you were one of those people. I just liked the turn of phrase.

When is Raynor's contract up, as I certainly wouldn't renew after this episode, even if he's found not guilty. He should have been sacked after his first court case.

end of next season.

But its not just some accusation is it.
The CPS have investigated and decide they have enough evidence to charge and possibly get a conviction.

CPS prosecute lots of cases that they lose. There is a strange custom in this country and that is innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

More likely they are letting it run a bit longer, hoping to cop a plea



They will look very closely at it nearer the event and if they can not 95% sure of conviction they will pull it. I think its a great shame that magistrates courts can't deal with a lot more, opting for trial by jury does give some people a great chance of walking away scott free.

Raynor due up again, very soon.

Something different this time

And with that, it's probably overdue that one of the mods close this conduit for innuendoe and conjecture.

Well done

?

why whats airlie going to do to him?



dont worry the taxi is on its way